Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »


May 24, 2006

The defendant was indicted in 1999 for crimes that occurred one or two years earlier. The regular-mail letter with the summons was returned "address unknown." The state made no further attempt to serve the defendant until it located him in a Federal prison in 2005. The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on statute of limitations grounds, and the trial court agreed.

So did the appellate court.

Writing for a unanimous court in State v. Jackson, Judge Corrigan notes that ORC 2901.13, which requires that a prosecution for a felony must be "commenced" within six years after the crime is committed, states that a prosecution isn't commenced by the return of an indictment unless "reasonable diligence" is used to execute service on it. Observing that regular mail wasn't even one of the service methods permitted under the rules, the opinion finds that the "lack of additional efforts to locate Jackson to serve him with the summons for eight years is indicative of the state's failure to exercise any diligence, much less the requisite 'reasonable diligence.'"

And in State v. Smith, the court finds that a four-year delay between an indictment an arrest was a violation of defendant's constitutional speedy trial rights, where the state never checked the BMV or did anything else to determine the defendant's address after the summons for the indictment came back unclaimed, Judge Rocco's opinion noting that the impediment to the defense by a delay of that length was "obvious."

Of course, the key case on the constitutional right of speedy trial is the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Barker v. Wingo, which enunciates the four-part test for determining whether the right has been violated: the length of the delay, the reason for it, the defendant's assertion of the right, and the prejudice he's suffered. There's an assumption among the criminal bar that the last criterion can be shown only by demonstrating that defense witnesses or evidence have been lost as a result of the delay, but that's not true, as the court's decision in State v. Wells makes clear. The defendant had been incarcerated for 19 months prior to trial. The majority opinion noted that prejudice under Barker can take three possible forms: "(1) oppressive pretrial incarceration; (2) anxiety and concern of the accused; and (3) the possibility that the accused's defense will be impaired by dimming memories and the loss of exculpatory evidence." The court found that 19 months was oppressive, despite the fact that trial counsel had sought most of the continuances. And the court reversed on plain error grounds, no less; neither trial nor appellate counsel even raised the issue of constitutional speedy trial.


Recent Entries

  • April 26, 2017
    Like Mark Twain, rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. Except I am pretty sure he's actually dead, while I am not, and for that matter, nobody's spreading rumors that I am. Great lead, huh? The nice thing about...
  • April 20, 2017
    The Supreme Court takes a look at the trial tax
    And you thought this was the week you only had to worry about income taxes
  • April 18, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Remembering Warren Zevon, and the Fourth Amendment lives
  • April 17, 2017
    Case Update
    Structural error, prejudice, and police run amok.
  • April 13, 2017
    Some arguments on sentencing
    Why oral arguments can be fun, even when they're not yours
  • April 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Oh fun: declarations against interest v. non-hearsay. Also, the difference between not guilty and innocent, and Ohio's statute penalizing the refusal to take chemical test in a DUI case goes bye-bye
  • April 11, 2017
    Case Update
    Filibusters, and appellate cases on all the ways lawyers can screw up.
  • April 7, 2017
    Change of course
    A new approach in my client-attorney relationships
  • April 4, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A true rocket docket, and Anthony Sowell pops up again
  • April 3, 2017
    Case Update
    Free merchant speech, an argument on Brady, another look at Creech